iv'a worn smith

Which is?

Is it the end of the month yet? I am very, very tired now.

Even if those people have "friends" on the current Board?

A good, ordinary player, as the late Jack Dyer would have said. Limited skills, but had a red hot go. A real team man and very vocal. As has been rightly pointed out, knee injuries cruelled him and cut short his career.

I hope you're right there. I find goat tends to be more salty than lamb.

Ohhhhhh pleeeeaaase. Let's just beg to differ shall we. Isn't that what a forum is about? Fan, please go and stand in the corner for 30 minutes and when you come back in the morning, I want 150 lines from you stating: "I must not hold an opinion, unless I satisfy others of my right to hold one" You are not the Messiah, you're just a very naughty boy.

It ought be noted that what happens behind closed doors at our footy club is no different to what happens at all footy clubs - our own workplaces for that matter. The difference here is our so-called dirty linen is being aired in public, by dint of erroneous and spurious media reports."Politics" will always rear its ugly head, when people in the same institution have differing views. Such is life, but I fear, rightly or wrongly, sacrificial lambs will be offered so that this goes away forever. The AFL want it to be so. However, I would like to put it on the record that I do not blame CC for anything, except for maybe a mis-guided sense of humour. I am sure his heart is in the right place. I can only repeat IF, and only IF, the comments attributed to him by a third party are indeed correct, then his position is untenable, regardless of what the outcome of the current investigation may be.

As I said in my previous post Fan, I would want to see a strong and demonstrated move toward an improved solidarity within the club, in relation to this particular issue. I have no doubt CC has done a power of work, but if he has to fall on his sword, or is pushed to do so, I do not see his current role as core to the MFC business. Fan, it is an opinion only. I do not claim to have intimate knowledge of any machinations between the MFC and CC's current tenure with the club. I am simply saying, if the comments attributed to CC have any veracity at all, then his days must be numbered, regardless of any hypothesis as to which party may or may not hold the high moral ground.

I support a move for solidarity within the club. The AFL will want its pound of flesh out of this, even though there are little, if any merits in the course they are currently pursuing. CC may have to be the sacrificial lamb, as sad as that is. In any event, his current position is hollow, with a position description of little substance.

IF Connolly now claims conspiracy theories within the MFC, against him, then his position at the Club is untenable, regardless of the outcome of the tanking investigation.

Connolly was also challenged on talkback on SEN, by a Dees supporter, regarding the reporting of so-called evidence of tanking in the media. in particular, the Dee's supporter rightly pointed out the absurd allegation that the we did not play Jack Watts enough that year. In response, Connolly told the supporter to not "shoot the messenger" and that the reporter concerned was only reporting the facts. Unfortunately, all too often these days, journalists rely on the shoot the messenger retort, to justify shoddy reporting. I long for the days of a more prolific investigative media, which does not simply take as read, media releases or quotes from protagonists as being fact. In this case, the Dee's supporter concerned was right. Don't take as Gospel, what is trotted out by the AFL minions. Sure, Rohan, you may see it as preserving your meal ticket, by kowtowing to the AFL, but such conduct undermines the integrity of every journalist that engages in such activity. There is no more ample evidence of this than your colleague, Ms. Wilson.

I agree Billy. However, given the Lawyers are now clearly involved, there is the intrinsic legal principle of "precedent" If the AFL go down this path with us, then the precedent has been set.Interestingly, Ray Finklestein is a Carlton man. Perhaps he sees a vested interest in assisting us. Kreuzer Cup anyone????

It has all been said before, I know, but if we are guilty of "bringing the game into disrepute", based on the performance on 2009, a year in which we were quite simply poor and not good enough, what then does the AFL make of other clubs before and since that time. There are numerous and more blatant "tanking" scenarios which can be levelled at other clubs, with far more veracity than what has been levelled at us. If the AFL continue to go down this path with us, then they will open the proverbial Pandoras can of worms. The AFL do not want to go there.

Wholeheartedly agree BB. The bookmakers rarely get it wrong and in that year, generally without exception, we were long odds to win any games of footy. As you put it, for whatever reason, we were "rubbish". In that situation, I would contend that is was incumbent on any coach to test the waters with any player on the list and challenge players to attempt to go beyond their perceived limitations, in terms of ability, just to see if it were possible to "pinch hit" with some players, even if that meant playing them out of their usual positions. The reality at that time was that we had very little else to hang our hats on. It is for the reason of a considerable dearth of talent that Neeld was left with no alternative but to turnover the list and formulate his own list, for which he will ultimately be happy to take responsibility. Simply put, in 2009, tanking or otherwise, we were bereft of any serious talent. No surprise, therefore, that we lost games and were often belted.

BBP, your statement begs the question, if "we are not 100% innocent in this", then of what are we guilty? The AFL is simply tilting at windmills here. If the AFL is at all serious and in the interests of procedural fairness and equity, they would need to launch investigations into a number of other clubs, if they claim our supposed actions set the precedent. The AFL simply do not want to go down this path. If the "system", as it was then, has been exploited, then it is the fault of the system, not the participants. Very simple premise really.

Deegirl, obviously you can't name your source, but you could tell us from what sphere it emanates; e.g. inside the MFC, the AFL or the media. Is it any of those?

It will when it is clear that the process has been undermined and the evidence which would need to be led, to sustain a case to penalise, is less than efficacious.

Fond childhood memories of Tony Charlton as host of the then Channel 9 Sunday Sports show. Like Mum's Sunday roast, it was not to be missed. Rest in Peace Tony. A true gentleman and remarkable commentator, in the days when unscripted and impromptu delivery was a necessity.

Let's just say someone with a legal background who is quite close to the club

I know, I know, it is all well and good to quote an unnamed source, but I have been told with some authority, that the word is the MFC will be told it has no case to answer. The reason it is taking so long is in the hope that the dust settles enough for the AFL to be comfortable to make an official announcement at a time of its own choosing.

The delay in finalising this investigation, is so the AFL can let the steam go out of the issue. They have bigger things to worry about now, like the fallout from the Tippett saga and third party player payments which continue, let alone finding a replacement for young Adrian.

No chance. As with any major media outlet, any commentary, report or article, they are well and truly "legalled" before going public. While she may think she is above scrutiny, she would not write such stories, until the legal department cleared it. However, your sentiments are shared by me.

And this is the essence of the entire issue. One can hypothesise as much as one likes, but it does not change the facts as so cogently put by HBT.

To all intents and purposes, Mark Neeld is making some pretty intensive changes. Oops, should be on the mixed metaphor thread.

I'll make sure you an Caro don't hear anything from my Boardroom. By the way, we affectionately call the boardroom the "crypt" and there aint no dead bodies in it either. Talk about drawing a long bow Fan, you are making it an art form. Be careful mate or it might snap and go right up your nose. And another point for reflection. One can only wonder who Caro might have been writing for if she had not been born to Octa Wilson. Maybe the local Southern Cross newspaper?